User blog:Votesmall/Editorial: WHD vs. OHF
They are radically different, probably polar opposite, in fact, so it is hard to compare them. Whenever I talk about WHD I think about Air Force One and Die Hard (which is what inspired the screenplay) but when I think about OHF I tend to lean more towards a Seagal flick, Dredd or Commando. And don't get me wrong, I loved Dredd and Commando was what got me into action films, but I can't see any resemblance to Die Hard from OHF apart from the fact that it takes place in an enclosed location. You are right about OHF being dark and gritty but it doesn't feel like Die Hard at all. Of course, I am not saying that it isn't a DHS film, it is, but it just doesn't feel like Die Hard. And you can see why. To me, I am reminded more of Nothing Lasts Forever rather than Die Hard, even the main protagonist being excessively violent and borderline psychotic. I have trouble recognizing Banning as a badass because while John McClane or Cale killed in self-defense, most of Banning's murders were cold-blooded homicides with extreme brutality. I could have liked the character more if they had delved into his psyche and helped us understand why he refuses to negotiate (like they did in Dredd) but they never did and just played off obvious mental problems as heroics. While John Cale was far from a perfect character, he was funny and interesting at least and could be considered an actual badass because he was doing it to save his daughter and still never committed cold-blooded torture or murder like Banning did. It's just hard for me to like a character who does things like stabbing a person in the leg to order them to speak English. That's beyond messed up, certainly not heroic. I have trouble recognizing OHF even as a good film, I just can't stand the way it uses patriotism to create shock value. In WHD at least when they destroyed the capitol building it was a part of the plot and therefore had more dramatic signifigance. In OHF whenever they needed an emotional scene, they had a plane crash into the Washington Monument or burn an American flag. That's just disgusting and exploiting nationalism rather than actually developing tension. Another problem I have with the film is that it just feels like introducing a tragic backstory to a character (like Banning or Kang) somehow makes it so the character is developed, well that's not so. Just having a tragic backstory means nothing unless you take the time to develop it. The character of Kang should have been an incredibly complex and interesting villain like Egor Korshunov, but neither he or Banning's backstories were explored like they were in other films like Cliffhanger. Banning seems to have a tragic past but he forgets all about it when the terrorists come, making it totally useless and probably only introduced to cover up for lazy writing. At least in Cliffhanger the backstory meant something and was consistent. I liked the part where Jessie was hanging onto him and he had the PTSD flashback to dropping Sarah. That's rough and only builds that dramatic tension for his tragic backstory. Also the scenes spent explaining his guilt and showing him as a broken man are completely missing in OHF. They try to develop Banning's character and Gerard Butler, a talented actor, works with what he is given, but his character is a blank slate, virtually given no development. There is a scene where he remembers the death of Margaret Asher in his car. The emotion is there but the scene ultimately has no signifigance to the character. White House Down also doesn't take itself too seriously yet seemed to put more effort into its screenplay than OHF, which means that it must be the superior film. The characters are more flamboyant and developed, the action scenes more memorable and the villains complex. OHF is just at the end of the day a simple, disgraceful film that preys on our patriotism to create fear, which is an extremely shallow and disgusting tactic. Something I have picked up on is that films like Die Hard or WHD don't take themselves so seriosuly yet they still care enough about the audience to create a fun and engaging story while also taking the extra step to create memorable, developed characters. Everyone remembers Hans Gruber but who remembers Kang Yeonsak? Everyone remembers that bastard Ellis but who remembers Dave Forbes? Everyone remembers John McClane and his catchphrase "yippee ki yay, motherfucker", but what is there to even remember about the "hero" Mike Banning? That a talented actor was given a terrible role? Or that he tortured and killed several unarmed people in sadistically brutal ways, which is technically considered a war crime? One of my biggest issues with OHF is that it's one of those pretentious, annoying films that thinks it is saying more than it really is. WHD knows what it is and doesn't bother with a ridiculous, forced speech at the end of the film followed by a shot of the American flag. It respects the audience too much for that. You can say that the limo scene in WHD was ridiculous and over the top, but I can understand that. It was supposed to be. But you remembered it, didn't you? It was a fun, engaging scene with a lot of great parts. Have you ever seen that before? Has anyone ever done a chase with two armored limos called "Ground Force One" being shot at by a minigun, which would ultimately be worked into the film's climax? That's great creativity and writing! With OHF, there's little memorable about it. The characters and the action scenes are riddled with endless cliches and plot holes. I could talk for days about how little originality went into OHF, but one thing we have to admit about WHD is that it was creative and fun at the same time. OHF, because it was held back by trying to say more than it really was, ultimately fell flat on its face because it suffered from a lack of originality and was unable to realize what it actually was, a sub-par action film, which is also what WHD was. Both films were sub-par action flicks, but WHD, since it was more creative and memorable, must be the superior film. Even the takeover of the White House made more sense in WHD. You say it was too easy, and I can understand that. There would have been more secret service agents at the White House. But that's called suspension of disbelief. The plot is engaging enough to allow the viewer to suspend tiny flaws in logic like that. I loved Air Force One so much because it was an inside job. Gibbs the mole helped Korshunov and his men get on the plane. That suspension of disbelief is possible because an inside job is the only possible way that something like that could ever work. And the plot in WHD was even more complicated than that. OHF just didn't care about its audience. Suspension of disbelief was not possible for a number of reasons. For one, that plane would have been shot down way before it got to DC airspace. And those ground forces would have all been killed before they reached the White House. Kang even bragged about how easy it was for them to take over the White House, so how can you say it was "too easy"? It took the terrorists in OHF thirteen minutes to do it. It took the terrorists in WHD a good chunk of the morning and they still had to take out the capitol building. How did Kang even get into the South Korean prime minister's faction? Was it ever explained? No. Because the script doesn't care about suspension of disbelief. They just assume the audience will accept its million plot holes. That's sleazy beyond belief. It is quite obvious that Raphelson let the terrorists into the Capitol building with their fake I.D.s and Walker let Stenz and his men into the White House along with their fake I.D.s. It was a complicated yet understandable plot. It makes perfect sense. It's even more plausible than what happened in Air Force One because there were two moles in different locations. Would the standoff have been over with snipers? Absolutely. But again, suspension of disbelief. If you want to get technical about the military, they would have never let Washington D.C. get bombed and taken over by ground terrorists. That would just never happen. If anything, OHF made it too easy for the terrorists because they literally had a garbage truck with a machine gun and that's pretty much how they took over the White House. Those terrorists would have been dead in 13 minutes, not inside the PEOC, and that's a fact. OHF had too little of a plot to allow for suspension of disbelief and at least WHD, though still implausible, made more sense and at least tried to explain how it worked. That extra effort must mean that WHD is the superior film, combined with its interesting characters, unique action sequences and good script. WHD also cared enough about its audience to know that nuclear weapons can't be detonated in their silos. OHF didn't even care enouh about us to research if that was possible. Again, suspension of disbelief isn't possible because the filmmakers just didn't care. We can both agree that a takeover of the White House will never happen but if it does, it will be an inside job. Director Antoine Fuqua, who the website claims to be "talented" (as long as he's humble, wink, wink) even said that the film was not made to make the audience think. Who says that? That the audience shouldn't have to think when watching a movie? Shows you what he thinks of the people going to see this movie. At least it explains why there's a gazillion plot holes, that the audience shouldn't have to think. Apparently the writers didn't either. God forbid WHD tried to make the audience think with scenes that built... gasp! Character development? How dare they? Don't they know movies aren't made to make the viewer think? Seriously, the scene where the President and John Cale discuss being a father and peace in the world is interesting. Don't expect that kind of thought from OHF. It's not happening. In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln's quote which was the entire inspiration for WHD truly makes you think. It is "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will because we destroyed ourselves". This is another great essay on why Olympus Has Fallen is a forgettable, weak film: www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/03/should-olympus-has-fallen-exist Category:Blog posts